IVF for lesbians rather than cancer drugs, it's all gone mad
Discussion
Ozzie Osmond said:
Adrian W said:
I heard this on the radio this morning, no cancer drugs, but lesbians who effectively don't conceve by choice get IVF at £7000 a pop, it's nuts!
^^^^ Absolutely this.I see no need for IVF on the National Health at all. It's not as if there's a shortage of people!
). My partner and I are both healthy and fit so don't use the NHS for much, pay a fair whack in tax so feel we are entitled to at least a cycle of IVF on the NHS, especially given that the NHS spends a lot treating the feckless who have never contributed anything to society. We paid out £5k last year for a private cycle (unsuccessful) as the NHS waiting list in Edinburgh is 3 years - because we paid for own cycle it means we are eligible for one less on the NHS which is a bit unfair. REALIST123 said:
It's an odd thing to hear in the news of the 4 in 10 kids living in poverty and the growing number seeking adoption, then to hear that we are increasing the already millions of pounds spent trying to get the infertile to have kids.
You,really, really couldn't make it up................
I tend to be against IVF etc, especially when we have many children waiting for adoption. Just seems to me to be a very selfish approach.You,really, really couldn't make it up................
Each to their own.
Adrian W said:
collateral said:
Always good when I read a thread title and can guess which 'newspaper' site the OP will be linking to...
No! if you read my post I said "I heard it on the radio" the DM was the only article i easily found.Jasandjules said:
I have friends who are desperate for kids. They have been trying for a while now. I don't begrudge them a chance to have a family of their own.
So why don't you give them the cash? I see no reason for the taxpayer to get involved.It's idiotic IMO that the National Health Service is becoming the National Lifestyle Choice Service.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Jasandjules said:
I have friends who are desperate for kids. They have been trying for a while now. I don't begrudge them a chance to have a family of their own.
So why don't you give them the cash? I see no reason for the taxpayer to get involved.It's idiotic IMO that the National Health Service is becoming the National Lifestyle Choice Service.
Ps and yes my life has been touched by cancer multiple times but don't see why its always used as an excuse to not fund some other treatment, especially when the group being treated is a minority.
Edited by ViperDave on Wednesday 20th February 20:45
ViperDave said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
Jasandjules said:
I have friends who are desperate for kids. They have been trying for a while now. I don't begrudge them a chance to have a family of their own.
So why don't you give them the cash? I see no reason for the taxpayer to get involved.It's idiotic IMO that the National Health Service is becoming the National Lifestyle Choice Service.
eta although it's got me thinking - what happens if a male couple wants a kid? Unless there's a list of willing surrogates I'd imagine the NHS would tell them shut up and adopt. Gay sexism?
Edited by collateral on Wednesday 20th February 20:51
Too right. Far too many motorcyclists costing a fortune when their statistical number comes up. Not to mention those that dance with the devil with cigarrettes or alcohol, or on the rugby or football pitch. Then there's those that don't seek early advice and let things get medically out of hand. Or don't take any advice about general healthcare, fatty foods, stressful jobs chasing big bucks etc - that's a lifestyle choice, too. And, dare I say it, those that demand very expensive treatment, often in terminal cases, because those treatments are now possible.
It all gets a bit grey at the edges when we really look into NHS provision, demand and consumption.
It all gets a bit grey at the edges when we really look into NHS provision, demand and consumption.
tim0409 said:
I have just returned from hospital in the last hour after "providing" a sample prior to our IVF next month (iPad mini came in handy as I had preloaded it with some select porn as I didn't fancy the thought of the pre-used magazines they supplied ). My partner and I are both healthy and fit so don't use the NHS for much, pay a fair whack in tax so feel we are entitled to at least a cycle of IVF on the NHS, especially given that the NHS spends a lot treating the feckless who have never contributed anything to society. We paid out £5k last year for a private cycle (unsuccessful) as the NHS waiting list in Edinburgh is 3 years - because we paid for own cycle it means we are eligible for one less on the NHS which is a bit unfair.
Good luck with it.). My partner and I are both healthy and fit so don't use the NHS for much, pay a fair whack in tax so feel we are entitled to at least a cycle of IVF on the NHS, especially given that the NHS spends a lot treating the feckless who have never contributed anything to society. We paid out £5k last year for a private cycle (unsuccessful) as the NHS waiting list in Edinburgh is 3 years - because we paid for own cycle it means we are eligible for one less on the NHS which is a bit unfair. We had our first round privately which failed, then we decided at a shot to nothing on the NHS and what do you know? Only went and worked! Now the little man is an energetic 17 month old, oh and the process seemed to do wonders for the missus internals (as in help fix them), she is now expecting our 2nd in 4 weeks (natural conceived!(just hope it was me! ha ha)).
collateral said:
eta although it's got me thinking - what happens if a male couple wants a kid? Unless there's a list of willing surrogates I'd imagine the NHS would tell them shut up and adopt. Gay sexism?
I've got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb - which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' - but that he can have the *right* to have babies.otolith said:
collateral said:
eta although it's got me thinking - what happens if a male couple wants a kid? Unless there's a list of willing surrogates I'd imagine the NHS would tell them shut up and adopt. Gay sexism?
I've got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb - which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' - but that he can have the *right* to have babies.They still need a donor for the swimmers - no donor and they're in the same boat as a couple with no womb and no surrogate. And in either case they're only going to need the NHS if there is something wrong with one of them, I'm sure artificial insemination is something they can figure out themselves!
Is anonymously donated sperm available to lesbian couples?
Is anonymously donated sperm available to lesbian couples?
Ozzie Osmond said:
So why don't you give them the cash? I see no reason for the taxpayer to get involved.
It's idiotic IMO that the National Health Service is becoming the National Lifestyle Choice Service.
Indeed. And people who get injured during sports, and people who get injured doing DIY, and people who get injured in car accidents. It's idiotic IMO that the National Health Service is becoming the National Lifestyle Choice Service.
None of these people deserve help, they all made the choices which didn't pay off right!?
Jasandjules said:
Indeed. And people who get injured during sports, and people who get injured doing DIY, and people who get injured in car accidents.
None of these people deserve help, they all made the choices which didn't pay off right!?
Surely alcohol related casualties should be added to that list? £3 billion a year could be saved if casualties were breath tested before being admitted.None of these people deserve help, they all made the choices which didn't pay off right!?
Having known the mental suffering of not being able to have children, I think at least one round of IVF should be provided to those couples who fail to conceive due to physical issues.
Its hard to put in words how much anguish it causes, for me personally, but a woman with maternal instincts its hard to watch someone suffer like that (and would suffer for her remaining years).
On another note regarding the number of children, and do we need more? What I would say is that couples that go through IVF want chidren so much that I would bet that they would be better than average parents, it hasn't just 'happened' for them. Therefore I would of thought that the children will be brought up well and be positive additions to the gene pool.
I wouldn't of thought you you would go through IVF and then sit back, claim welfare and let kiddy run a mock....
scenario8 said:
I don't see it as all that more selfish than "natural" pregnancy, to be honest, if the concern is there are plenty of needy children awaiting loving families.
I agree. The "lots of children waiting to be adopted" argument is a pretty poor one unless you apply it across the board, not just to those going through IVF.Ozzie Osmond said:
Adrian W said:
I heard this on the radio this morning, no cancer drugs, but lesbians who effectively don't conceve by choice get IVF at £7000 a pop, it's nuts!
^^^^ Absolutely this.I see no need for IVF on the National Health at all. It's not as if there's a shortage of people!
I'm guessing no.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff